The article misses the substantial privacy improvements made by GrapheneOS and heavily downplays the importance of security. There are widespread use of exploit

The article misses the substantial privacy improvements made by GrapheneOS and heavily downplays the importance of security. There are widespread use of exploits, not only in targeted attacks. It also omits the fact that the other operating systems which are brought up have years of delays for important privacy and security patches while not providing all the standard Android Open Source Project privacy and security protections. Not having kernel and browser updates for months, not shipping current driver and firmware updates and not keeping up with the bare minimum partial backports of AOSP patches to older releases is quite problematic. Beyond that, providing full Android privacy and security patches requires being on the latest releases. It's also strange to talk about the hardware requirements listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices as if those are unknown and not well documented. A device not receiving privacy/security patches for drivers and firmware is major a problem regardless of the OS choice. Not having secure disk encryption for the majority of users not setting a strong passphrase due to lack of a good secure element is another major issue. These requirements don't exist for no reason and GrapheneOS is working with a major OEM on making a device that's at least a sidegrade from a Pixel and then later a security upgrade over it. No devices other than Pixels are providing a reasonable level of security combined with allowing another OS. Lagging very far behind on patches and lacking working disk encryption for most users isn't doing the bare minimum. GrapheneOS doesn't do anything which reduces USB-C functionality beyond having a setting which blocks new USB-C connections and then disables USB-C when locked by default which can be turned off.